If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
It is a collection of great humour as well as satirical comedy, in-depth articles of famous chess players written by KS, as well as a look into his close family ties and personal life.
Some of the humour may even make you laugh out loud. For example,
The CFC on moving day. Homeless
Brilliant original material from Canada's finest GM!
What does Bobby Fischer mean to me personally? I never met him, but as a chessplayer he represents something that is bigger than the game itself. Chess , the game, can never have a very big appeal (compared to poker or tennis or soccer) by itself. It is , after all, a very difficult game that requires hard work and dedication. It requires an unusual combination passion and craziness to be a chess fan.
Undoubtedly, in my lifetime, Bobby Fischer will have been the only individual to have made chess universally appealing. And probably will be the only one to do so in all of human history.
What was it that made Fischer great? What was it that made him a living legend, and now that he is dead...will he become the 'Elvis Presley' of the chess culture? I am not sure, but I think that we must remember that Fischer was only too human. He had to deal with the pressures of superstardom alone. He had no real family, and few friends. He was a fragile human being.
And like every true genius, there must some element of tragedy, something that makes us feel sad within when the story is complete. Is the tragedy of Bobby Fischer that he never played again after winning the World Championship, or is the tragedy about his final years in disgrace (before finding a friendly haven in Iceland)? I don't know, and your answer is as good as mine.
In all of my years as a chessplayer (fan), I have to say that I have never seen anything like the fever that Bobby Fischer created. Chess is supposed to be dull! Bobby generated excitement and controversy. The champions that came later (Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik , Anand, etc) had the misfortune to have to measure themselves against Fischer. And since Fischer had disappeared, he was untouchable. Unbeatable. Try as they may (especially Kasparov), there will only be one Bobby Fischer in the history books long after they are gone.
I am truely thankful to bear witness to Fischer's great achievements. Thankyou, Bobby!
----------------------------
For myself,
I played tournament chess before Fischer (1972) and after. It was night and day. I remember being in NYC in 1972 for the Continental Open (before Goichberg created the World Open). I was walking by Times Square...and on the giant electronic board...news about the Fischer-Spassky match appeared...totally awesome!
Three events have allowed me to spend the last 30 years earning my living in chess:
1 - Fischer-Spassky 1972
2 - Challenging Mathematics - 1984
3 - Searching for Bobby Fischer 1993
* 2 and 3 would never have happened if we didn't have #1
It is a collection of great humour as well as satirical comedy, in-depth articles of famous chess players written by KS, as well as a look into his close family ties and personal life.
Some of the humour may even make you laugh out loud. For example,
The CFC on moving day. Homeless
Brilliant original material from Canada's finest GM!
Kevin :
When Fischer briefly withdrew from competition because of 'Soviet cheating' in the early 60's, he toured the US and Canada , giving simuls and lectures. I remember when he came to Montreal : I was not playing chess at the time, but Fischer appeared on TV playing a blitz game with Lazlo Witt. (Witt won!)
Yes, Mr. Witt won that game, and lost al the others (maybe 15 ???).
But the one he won was the first... and the only one shown on TV.
Although it may take a few seconds to download onto your screen, Kevin Spraggett's blog is execptional material.
Brilliant original material from Canada's finest GM!
Anthony, thank you for pointing out that GM Spraggett has a blog. I agree with you, GM Spraggett's blog is full of extremely educational material about chess, life as it contains many humorous aspects, which I find fantastic. Humor seems to have disappeared from television, the newspapers, and even from Hollywood and its movies. Thank you GM Spraggett for taking the time to create and maintain your blog with very interesting articles.
It is a sad day for chess when people are still pining over games played in the 60's.
I disagree with you 100%. Chess games from all eras are worthy of study. If Kasparov had not studied games from the 60's and earlier he would not have become World Chess Champion. He used his study of games from the past to improve his understanding of the positional and tactical aspects of chess, as well as learn endgame techniques. If Kasparov did not think that he learned anything from studying these games from the past do you think he would have went ahead with all of his recent books in the "My Great Predecessors" series, and do you think he and the co-authors of "My Great Predessors" would have spent so much time analyzing these games for these books? Apparently he, other world chess champions and myself disagree with your viewpoint, because we have learned alot about chess from studying chess games from the past.
Last edited by Wayne Mendryk; Sunday, 1st February, 2009, 04:56 AM.
I disagree with you 100%. Chess games from all eras are worthy of study. If Kasparov had not studied games from the 60's and earlier he would not have become World Chess Champion. He used his study of games from the past to improve his understanding of the positional and tactical aspects of chess, as well as learn endgame techniques. If Kasparov did not think that he learned anything from studying these games from the past do you think he would have went ahead with all of his recent books in the "My Great Predecessors" series, and do you think he and the co-authors of "My Great Predessors" would have spent so much time analyzing these games for these books? Apparently he, other world chess champions and myself disagree with your viewpoint, because we have learned alot about chess from studying chess games from the past.
I am not saying that we shouldn't examine/study the games from the past. As I have stated before in other threads is that of all the former champions people 'pine' over only ONE particular one. Who cares that the people who also have held that title were equally as dominant. I have the first two Predecessor books and am currently going through them.
Ever since I started playing chess (started in 2004) all I ever here about is Fischer. It comes down to hero worship because he was american. Karpov would have (imho) crushed him and proved that he was by far more dominant by his winning streak in tournaments. Kasparov accomplishments were 10x what fischers were. Past champions were equally as dominant. Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik all dominated during their reigns. Still, all that we hear about is Fischer... The closest I can see was the worship of Paul Morphy in the 1800's. Steinitz would have crushed Morphy, but when Steinitz went to the states all they could talk about was Morphy. Even when Steinitz pointed out some of Morphy's mistakes they still pined over the 'good old days' when Morphy played chess... Atleast Morphy was a decent human, unlike fischer and his anti jewish racist rants.
Comes down to hero worship pure and simple. People are still constantly talking about him. The North American chess world is stuck in the past and won't get back to the 'glory days' until we stop CONSTANTLY talking about games played backed in the 1960-70's by one particular champion. Sure he was a great player, but does he warrant the constant attention still??? He certainly doesn't deserve more attention than the many other champions.
Anthony, thank you for pointing out that GM Spraggett has a blog. I agree with you, GM Spraggett's blog is full of extremely educational material about chess, life as it contains many humorous aspects, which I find fantastic. Humor seems to have disappeared from television, the newspapers, and even from Hollywood and its movies.
An element of humour is necessary in our lives. But good humour, like good chess, also has logic or truth. Spraggett is a (Grand?) master at humour , and of course his chess analysis is supurb. What is outstanding in Spraggett's humour is that he shows how comical and ridiculous things really are. When you look at it, the CFC's situation is ridiculous! -- and his implication is that it is run by a bunch of monkeys!
An element of humour is necessary in our lives. But good humour, like good chess, also has logic or truth. Spraggett is a (Grand?) master at humour , and of course his chess analysis is supurb. What is outstanding in Spraggett's humour is that he shows how comical and ridiculous things really are. When you look at it, the CFC's situation is ridiculous! -- and his implication is that it is run by a bunch of monkeys!
Priceless statements by Canada's finest GM.
Hi Anthony,
This may be Kevin's opinion and you may share it, but I don't. The move by Hal Bond to get Bob Gillanders on board was excellent. Then David came along and he, in collaboration with Bob, are tackling the difficult issues one by one. You have very bright, qualified individuals who are running things today. What more do you want?
You know, it is always easy to criticize. The problems and challenges for the organization have been on the table for a number of years now....finally some very competent people have stepped forward and are working hard to make a difference.
I think they deserve our support and cheap shots are really just that...cheap!
This may be Kevin's opinion and you may share it, but I don't. The move by Hal Bond to get Bob Gillanders on board was excellent. Then David came along and he, in collaboration with Bob, are tackling the difficult issues one by one. You have very bright, qualified individuals who are running things today. What more do you want?
You know, it is always easy to criticize. The problems and challenges for the organization have been on the table for a number of years now....finally some very competent people have stepped forward and are working hard to make a difference.
I think they deserve our support and cheap shots are really just that...cheap!
Sans rancune,
Larry
Hi Larry,
I'm laughing at the humour. You don't have to agree or disagree with KS to enjoy it.
I am sure that the CFC executive are doing the best that they can. Let them! Who's stopping them? I know how well David reorganized the Toronto Chess Club from the shambles that it fell into. ( way back when ). But then, shortly afterwards the Toronto Chess Club simply disappeared. No ones fault really.
Kevin's humour is priceless. He is also Canada's strongest GM.
Too bad we don't get more humour in the media, movies, politics, etc. We can all do with a little bit of comic relief when it comes to the CFC.
Last edited by Anthony Cheron; Sunday, 1st February, 2009, 09:53 PM.
I agree with Larry - I may have some issues from time to time with the CFC, but I acknowledge what they have accomplished in one year -
- stopped the print magazine and introduced the Chess Canada webzine;
-upgraded the submission of tournament results for rating;
-sold the retail business and entered into commission arrangements;
-sold the office unit and reduced office rental costs by going to a " home office " arrangement for the three part-time staff;
-eliminated the full-time office administrator position; and
- although CFC will have an unavoidable deficit in this fiscal year, it now has a chance for a balanced 2009-10 budget ( not bad after four years of substantial deficits ).
We don't necessarily therefore have to agree with everything the CFC does, or how they do it, but we should acknowledge how very far they have brought the organization in one year !
I agree with Larry - I may have some issues from time to time with the CFC, but I acknowledge what they have accomplished in one year -
- stopped the print magazine and introduced the Chess Canada webzine;
-upgraded the submission of tournament results for rating;
-sold the retail business and entered into commission arrangements;
-sold the office unit and reduced office rental costs by going to a " home office " arrangement for the three part-time staff;
-eliminated the full-time office administrator position; and
- although CFC will have an unavoidable deficit in this fiscal year, it now has a chance for a balanced 2009-10 budget ( not bad after four years of substantial deficits ).
We don't necessarily therefore have to agree with everything the CFC does, or how they do it, but we should acknowledge how very far they have brought the organization in one year !
Bob
I evaluate it a bit differently. My subjective gradings gives them low marks on promoting chess and on selling memberships.
If they were better at those two small things, would all those things you mentioned have been necessary?
I agree this far - the financial problems are due to many factors. But the result was that restructuring had to be done to stop from going under. And this meant " promoting chess " and " selling memberships " had to be shelved to some extent while the house was put back in order.
Once there is a balanced budget for 2009-10 ( if CFC can do it now ), then it will be time to take stock again and determine core priorities. Your two are very high on this future reorientation I expect.
Tweet
Comment